st ligne PA LPI 
sedan tp Araneae ORES Lee eg oils 
enchants. 0 5 tye ie Ret PN 

Caren etna eas tan neta TsnmM lt 
“acarrtnd intimated ox Se nS 


Fae Beem neh ee he Fenn 5 


re Ben aN 
anne hae 


Tae Akad steam 
lactose ke tees oem me 
otetncnrtecheensatinaalitt 


oars et 
Tn het lt ea Meme Re min 
Sohn tee oe an tye pemetelthMer 


vt 
tate diate atin 
pa et nt neal a! 
nc Boot 


Tien amine 


tee 
ME em Ete 


Spcited =) 170 Fo 

Loar Bp ad Pram to 

Mea a ow nmank ALR AARNEES ofA AT 
ain ant st ths pela Cet a VRE 


ener iy 


oe gp mano BN 
see A eee mung WATTS 
Sy Par rcecer ear 

Seer rirance nec Fe ste NTN rt MANS 

reams eam winch Me Ts 


Lorem 
ee ere ee eee 


fea Bt 

ite Pot ment) 

FO aeeat Tain tito aah nM 
esmh.2Aotlatee 

Somer Ye Sener tay 


Needs tana save 
pyrene rarer 

et mi ot ttn 

eget ae oaush nye ait: 


pe haoee we 
sete Lonel 
anon wah 


nae Teen wa 
aA un enn intend Ae ot ONES se 
pene ener perenne 
sbaee Ne teint ie 
Sag cminanarasae! arabe 
"spurns alidnant 
panne Tene Teo 


eet yer ah 


patter 


Sue mae 


nna 

Festa tnt eT 

Stine NAO a 
ef am 


re 
(hin na 
enon onere ne 

Ne aenie Mad ymncr a 


Dane etnet TA 
1 pa titles Pa ATI DAAGA oars 
Ea RR Ma a er te mee 


Ee Soa came beet Aasteeate O26 8: 
snr 


pple ee ak 
- as indeeet rent Doar hs 
Lene 


Paton 
Soe tne naman aT 
— 


Serna sien ttre 
ae eas 


Cre nearnee pat 
eran anatomist 


pprderria Weir tet 
Laeten 


Fetes 
Mae eae 


eesianianteaate eM 


Hoi ernn i tele aerate 


anata thane tet 
Staten anetomat 


eal 


wear e ee 


ion 


ee aaa ts 
ake —_ 


% 
“ee 


1G. 1—Pisa, Campo Santo: Detail of the Virgin of the Annunciation on Tomb of the Gherardesca 
Family, by Lupo di Francesco 


OBSERVATIONS ON SIENESE AND PISAN 
TRECENTO SCULPTURE 


By W. R. VALENTINER 


TENA, the home of some of the greatest of the trecento sculptors, is curiously poor 
in typically Sienese sculpture of that period, although so rich in contemporary 
paintings. Aside from the Pedroni tomb in the cathedral—of which a good view 
is hardly obtainable—all of Tino di Camaino’s important monuments are to be 
found outside of Siena: in Pisa, in Florence, and in Naples. The great master 

of the fagade sculptures of the cathedral of Orvieto worked almost exclusively in that city 
and in Perugia. Agostino di Giovanni and Agnolo di Ventura, artists justly lauded by 
Vasari, accomplished their most important work in Arezzo, Pistoja, Volterra, and Florence. 
Gano’s two splendid tombs are housed in the church of Casole, and Goro di Gregorio’s 
delightful creations are hidden in the cathedrals of Massa Maritima and Messina. 

To be sure, the fagade of Siena cathedral is rich in trecento statues, but these show no 
typically Sienese characteristics; they are completely in the tradition imposed from the 
first by the vehement personality of Giovanni Pisano. It was probably due to the influence 
of this powerful personality that the best of the Sienese sculptors transferred their activities 
to other towns. A document dated 1285 testifies to the energetic fashion in which Giovanni 
Pisano insisted on his rights: when Ramo di Paganello, one of the city’s most famous 
artists, was appointed to work on the cathedral, it was expressly stipulated that his 
activities as a sculptor should not interfere in any way with those of the cathedral architect 
(Giovanni Pisano) but must, on the contrary, be subservient to his wishes. Behind this 
stipulation one readily recognizes the autocratic spirit of the great Pisan, who would permit 
no independence among his associates. 

Crescentio di Camaino, who succeeded Giovanni as architect until the year 1337, 
carried on in all respects the ideas of his predecessor. Of this the fagade sculptures belong- 
ing to Crescentio’s period furnish good proof: they bear the closest resemblance to 
Giovanni’s own work, and Crescentio saw to it that his son Tino received the same school- 
ing, placing him with Giovanni as a pupil. In his early work Tino is so reminiscent of 
Giovanni that the sculpture of the two artists has beenlong confused. In fact, the spirit of 
Giovanni Pisano dominated the cathedral facade until the seventies, when Giovanni 
Cecco carved the row of half-length figures of the apostles and the Madonna Enthroned 
above the rose window (now in the cathedral museum), and substituted for the inward 
fire of Giovanni a forced and morose expression. 

The new portion of the unfinished cathedral developed in different fashion. The tender 
and sensitive Sienese spirit permeated its architecture and sculpture from the start. 
Lando di Pietro, its first architect, and Lorenzo Maitani, the gifted architect of Orvieto 
cathedral, who exercised a certain influence, were possessed of a far finer architectural sense 
than Giovanni Pisano, whose dislocated style had shattered all continuity of line and all 
unity in the relief planes. The clear, slender, soaring lines of the newer building, its 


I 


2 THE ART BULLETIN 

delicate proportions, the effect of its unornamented planes and the inspired arrangement 
of the ornamented surfaces, were adapted to a different type of figure sculpture, and it is 
therefore not surprising that a sculptor like Giovanni di Agostino, the product of a truly 
Sienese workshop, widely removed from the style of Giovanni Pisano, should have come 
to the fore. He is the only Sienese trecento sculptor who is worthily represented in his 
native city. Unfortunately, his work is not on the same high level as that of the masters 
of the previous generation, in the first thirty years of the century. The sculptures that he 
carried out for the new cathedral rank, however, with his best achievements. 

The great Sienese masters were no longer available for Siena; she had ceded all rights 
and privileges to Giovanni Pisano and his imitators. The further the native masters were 
removed from the sphere of Giovanni Pisano’s influence, the more independent, and 
consequently the more intrinsically Sienese, they became. This is particularly true as 
regards Tino di Camaino, whose art unfolded to its richest development in his late works 
in Naples, and also as regards the master of the Orvieto fagade sculptures, Nicola di Nuto. 


(1) NICOLA DI NUTO 


The marble statue of St. Francis in the right-hand aisle of S. Francesco in Siena (Fig. 11) 
has without good grounds been associated with Ramo di Paganello.’ It is, to my mind, a 
characteristic work of Nicola di Nuto, sculptor of the Orvieto fagade. All its characteristics 
point clearly to this gifted master, who so remarkably combined in these fagade sculptures 
a spiritual and even mystic conception with pregnant draughtsmanship and close obser- 
vation of nature.” Witness the long oval of the head, the lower portion slightly protruding, 
the lofty forehead, the curiously stylized beard and whiskers, the delicate swinging rhythm 
of the draperies, the elegant and sharply drawn hands and feet, the tender and inspired 
expression of the whole figure, as well as the naturalistic details, such as the structure of 


the saint’s girdle, the book, the veins of his hands. 


1. In the Catalogue of the Sienese Exhibition, 1904, and 
in the Cicerone; against this attribution, F. Mason Perkins 
in Guide to Siena by W. Heywood and L. Olcott, 1924, 
Pp. 355: 

2. Although in regard to the attribution of the sculp- 
tures the meritorious Leipzig scholar, A. Schmarsow, in a 
recently published essay (Das Fassaden Problem am Dom 
von Orvieto, in Repertorium fiir Kunstwissenschaft, 1926, 
no. 3), attives at other results, I have not felt it necessary 
to alter my earlier conclusions, which were written a year 
before (July, 1925). 

Schmarsow points out correctly that the earliest fagade 
plan to be preserved is reminiscent of Notre-Dame of 
Paris, particularly the north and south portals, and claims 
that the French influence may be plainly discerned in the 
fagade reliefs also. I cannot agree with him, however, 
when he names Ramo di Paganello as the originator of 
this plan, claiming further that he was the principal master 
of the fagade reliefs. For some time Ramo lived ‘‘ beyond 
the mountains”—not unusual, probably, for contemporary 
Italian sculptors—but he is mentioned as a sculptor only 
and not as an architect, and, above all, the Orvieto records 
make only a single mention of him—in 1293. How 
Schmarsow justifies the statement that ‘when Lorenzo 
Maitani was called to Orvieto in 1310 he appointed the 


master Ramo to head the sculptors’ workshop” is far 
from clear to me, as there is no word of Ramo in the 
records of 1310, and it is a rather daring assumption 
that seventeen years after the only mention of him in the 
records Ramo still maintained his position, when in the 
meantime there had been two or three changes in the 
leading architect and we have not even the assurance that 
he was still alive. 

Schmarsow again oversteps the mark in declaring that 
the wooden figure of a female saint in the cathedral 
museum must be by Ramo, copied from a well-known 
ivory Madonna in Paris and later taken by him to Italy. 
In the first place, I see no reason for assuming that this 
figure is by the master of the facade reliefs, and further it 
is not unique in its derivation from a French ivory, for 
these figures were by no means unknown in Italy, and it 
could have been copied there. 

As imitations of French sculptures I would point, for 
example, to the marble figures of the Annunciation in the 
Baptistery of Carrara, which have been called French; 
to the marble statue of the Madonna in the Kaiser Fried- 
rich Museum, which is catalogued as “possibly Flemish” 
although it comes from Pisa; and to the wooden Christ 
Enthroned mentioned below, in the cathedral museum at 
Orvieto. 


SIENESE AND PISAN TRECENTO SCULPTURE 3 


Ramo di Paganello was at least one generation earlier than Nicola di Nuto and there is 
no mention of him in documents dating from the period of the Orvieto facade sculptures. 
He is first mentioned in a document of the year 1281 (Nov. 20), in which a proposition to 
reinstate him as citizen is laid before the magistrate in order that he may work on the 
cathedral. He had lost his citizenship because of the seduction of a woman and lived in 
exile ‘over the mountains,” but was considered by the Sienese to be one of the greatest of 
living sculptors (“de bonis intalliatoribus et sculptoribus de mundo qui inveniri possit’’). 
If we assume him to have been at least twenty-five years old at this time, he must have been 
born about 1255, which would make him about ten years younger than Giovanni Pisano, 
who, as he was working on the pulpit in Siena with his father in 1265, was presumably 
born about 1245. Ramo di Paganello worked on the cathedral at Siena in collaboration 
with Giovanni from 1288 on. In the document dealing with this arrangement the magis- 
trate charges the master, then newly restored to honor, together with his brothers and 
nephews, to execute fine and beautiful work “for the cathedral along the lines laid down 
by” the architect, Giovanni Pisano. This seems to indicate that Giovanni had taken over 
Ramo di Paganello’s workshop in Siena, which probably was counted the best in the city. 
Giovanni’s activities in connection with the cathedral continued at least until 1295. 

That Ramo di Paganello preserved his high reputation as a sculptor despite his subordi- 
nation to Giovanni Pisano is proved by another document, which speaks of him as employed 
in connection with the cathedral of Orvieto in 1293.4 To judge by all accounts his position 
must have been one of great importance because he received ten soldi a day, while Giovanni 
Pisano, for instance, in Siena, in the year 1299, received only eight soldi and three denari, 
and Nicola di Nuto, in 1325, when he already played a leading réle as sculptor, received 
nine soldi a day, and in 1345, as leading cathedral architect, twelve soldi. 

If we wish to form a conception of Ramo di Paganello’s work we must look for him 
among those artists closely related to Giovanni Pisano who worked in his style on the 
Sienese cathedral. It goes without saying that there are many striking sculptures of this 
type on the cathedral facade, but it has not yet been possible to distinguish another 
distinct personality among the circle of Giovanni’s collaborators. 

To A. Venturi belongs the credit of pointing to Nicola di Nuto as one of the principal 
artists of the Orvieto facade reliefs and also of establishing the relationship that exists 
between these and the two wooden crucifixes attributed to Nicola di Nuto in the sacristy 
of the cathedral. In my opinion, however, Venturi does not go far enough when he believes 
that Nicola di Nuto executed only partly these reliefs and that the architect Lorenzo 
Maitani is after all responsible for their style as well as for their compositions, as was 
stated earlier by the Cicerone and quite recently again by F. Volbach.° 

If the characteristics of the fagade sculptures indicate Maitani, how does it happen that 
the wooden crucifixes, carved by Nicola di Nuto in 1339, nine years after Maitani’s death, 
show exactly these same characteristics, and in another material at that? No one would 
be willing to affirm that these wood carvings are the work of a pupil. On the contrary, 


3. Milanesi, Documenti per la storia dell’arte senese, I, 1314 in connection with the construction of the Palazzo of 
1854. Bartolomeo da Capua. This possibility is disputed else- 

4. L. Fumi, Il duomo di Orvieto, 1891, p. 97. where. F 

5. Venturi considers it possible that Ramo is identical 6. Handbuch der Kunstwissenschafl, 1925. 


with the Ramulus de Senis who is mentioned in Naples in 


4 THE ART BULLETIN 


they rank artistically with the stone reliefs, and indicate the same artist, one who was 
unique in the history of contemporary sculpture and can readily be recognized by his 
slender, swaying figures, rhythmical draperies, tender, devout, weary expression of eyes, 
and wonderful precision of execution. 

It is impossible, in my opinion, to distinguish the work of different hands in the fagade 
sculptures, although one must admit that in the third row the types are somewhat heavier 
and the execution weaker than elsewhere. The unity of style is so complete that one must 
assume these sculptures to be essentially the work of one gifted master in progressive 
phases of development. This master, however, is the sculptor Nicola di Nuto, rather than the 
architect Maitani. Venturi himself falls into contradiction in trying to distinguish different 
hands. He quite rightly attributes the marble statue of the Madonna in the cathedral 
museum (Figs. 5 and 7) to Nicola di Nuto, presumably on the basis of the first row of reliefs, 
which he attributes in great part to this artist. The Madonna, however, is particularly 
close in type to the female figures of the third row, for instance with the Madonna in the 
Adoration of the Kings and The Flight into Egypt (Figs. 2 and 3). Venturi attributes this 
series of reliefs to Florentine collaborators, particularly Francesco Talenti,’ who, he 
believes, acquainted Nicola di Nuto with compositional motives used by Andrea Pisano. 

So far as Maitani’s collaboration is concerned it must have been limited to an indication 
of the outlines of the compositions on the architectural plans, as we find them indicated 
on the first of the two extant plans for the fagade (which Fumi, without documentary 
reasons, attributes to Arnolfo di Cambio and which may very well be a first formulation of 
Maitani’s ideas). It is true that Nicola di Nuto and his workshop were under Maitani’s 
direction, but Nicola’s high salary* makes it highly probable that in carrying out Maitani’s 
plans he had complete freedom in so far as the sculpture was concerned, especially as 
Maitani was frequently absent from Orvieto. For Maitani himself to have made models 
for these reliefs, as Venturi conjectures, would, according to our information, have been 
most unusual at this early period. 

It is also difficult to believe that the artist who carried out this work, and whose every 
chisel stroke proved him a master and an outstanding personality, could have so subordi- 
nated this personality to Maitani’s as to reproduce the latter’s style down to the least 
detail without allowing any trace of his own temperament to creep through. Such a 
complete subordination of personality seems to me incredible even for the Middle Ages. 
A more probable assumption is that one artist produced the reliefs, the scope of which is 
after all not so extraordinary but that he could have compassed it alone, at least in so far 
as the figures are concerned, during the course of a decade. There was enough work in 
the ornamental portions of the fagade to occupy those more obscure and more poorly paid 
colleagues mentioned in contemporary documents. 


7. Volbach (of. cit., p. 156) goes even further, desig- shop of Andrea Pisano’s prior to his work on the baptistery 


nating them as distinctly “Florentine.” In this case the 
marble statue in the cathedral museum, which is obviously 
by the same hand, would also have to be Florentine, Itis, on 
the contrary, typically Sienese. Both scholars overlooked 
the fact that the Orvieto fagade reliefs antedate the Floren- 
tine baptistery doors by Andrea Pisano, whose activities 
started only in 1329, when the Orvieto reliefs were already 
completed. We have no knowledge of a Florentine work- 


—in fact, it is most likely that he did not stay at Florence 
before this time and was called from outside (Pisa?) to do 
the work; besides, one can hardly talk of a “Florentine 
style” in trecento sculpture at this period, 

8. As early as 1325 Nicola di Nuto received the next 
highest emolument to that of the architect (nine soldi) 
and is named first in the accounts, while the other sculptors 
received only two to six soldi per diem. 


Fic. 2 Eic:73 
Orvieto, Cathedral Facade: 


Fic. 4—Siena, Opera del Duomo: 
Detail of Wooden Crucifix, by 
Nicola di Nuto (?) 


Frc. 5—Orvieto, Opera del Fic. 6—Orvieto, Cathedral Portal: Fic. 7—Orvieto, Opera del 
Duomo: Marble Statuette Enthroned Madonna, by Duomo: Marble Statuette 
of the Madonna, by Nicola di Nuto of the Madonna, by 
Nicola di Nuto Nicola di Nuto 


CUNT SPiN omN’ Up vjOIN Kq “poo U1 aninjs ONN Ip vjONN’ fo 4amopoy 
Aq ‘svouvag “19 fo anqnig ajqavpy — amoayrKjog :uasskyy wy 4 fo Kpsadorg ‘(Kupudsary) 8anqsing —_v &q “Duuopn yy ay} fo anjnjg 21940 WY 
LOISIIUDAT *S “DUALG—II “OL OL ‘SLT 6 -oIq aJJON DIap O140JDAGC ‘DULG — “OLA 


SIENESE AND PISAN TRECENTO SCULPTURE 7 


Lorenzo Maitani, although we possess considerable documentary evidence concerning 
him, is nowhere specifically mentioned as a sculptor. Moreover, during the decade 1320 
to 1330, when the fagade sculptures were executed, he was so extraordinarily occupied with 
architectural commissions that one may question his having time to execute these works. 
In 1319 the city of Perugia sent ambassadors to Orvieto to invite Maitani’s aid in repairing 
its water system, and in the three following years new aqueducts were constructed there 
under his direction. He was also claimed by the Perugians in connection with the defences 
of the city. Herepaired the gates of S. Susanna and S. Angelo and the fortress of Castiglione 
and rebuilt the Castello della Pieve. Called back to Orvieto, he appears shortly thereafter 
to have been occupied in Todi, where the beautiful gate of S. Fortunato was possibly 
executed from his plans. In 1322 Maitani was invited by the Sienese to advise with them 
concerning the new cathedral—a commission which must have necessitated a fairly lengthy 
stay in that city. The citizens of Orvieto, probably fearing to lose their architect, then 
raised his stipend, made him city architect, and did everything during the next few years 
to keep him busy in Orvieto. The fountain in the Piazza was rebuilt, the Palazzo Com- 
munale was enlarged, and under Maitani’s direction the city defences and gates were in 
part repaired and in part rebuilt. Moreover, what was there not to do in the cathedral 
itself? First of all, the choir, which was already begun, had to be strengthened by arches, 
and the whole plan—particularly the fagade—had to be revised. In addition to this, the 
construction work had to be newly organized. There was the troublesome production of 
the different kinds of marble, which were quarried in almost a dozen different places in the 
neighborhood of Siena, Carrara, and Rome, under the supervision of Maitani’s assistants, 
and there loaded onto ox wagons for delivery; there was the installation of a mosaic and 
glass factory and of a bronze foundry; and, finally, there was the direction of the workshops 
of the marble sculptors and wood carvers. When we read of all these details in the con- 
temporary documents we are not surprised that the fagade reliefs should have been carried 
out by the second most famous master, who was to become Maitani’s successor. 

The fund of information about Nicola di Nuto is comparatively rich. At the same time 
it is difficult to connect the details with any of his extant works. There is no documentary 
proof that the two wooden crucifixes in the cathedral sacristy, which Venturi claims to be 
his work, are actually by him. If we examine the records closely, we find that work was 
done on the choir stalls from 1334 on, and that most of the half-length figures of saints 
and prophets on the upper part of these stalls were executed in the year 1339.° Jacopo di 
Lotto, Ambroscino di Meo, and Nicola di Nuto shared this work. Nicola di Nuto carved, 
among other figures, those of St. Francis, St. Dominicus, and St. Augustin, receiving three 
lire, fifteen soldi for each figure, as did his colleagues. Similar payments for single figures, 
not always more specifically identified, were made to him on April 26, August 14, August 26, 
and December 19, 1339. From the sense of the text it seems very probable that the first 
payment, on April 26, to which Venturi refers, was also for one of these half-length figures 
in the choir stalls and not for one of the crucifixes in the sacristy, which are nowhere 
mentioned in the records. 

However, we may assume that these crucifixes were executed soon after the completion 
of the choir stalls, and as we gather from the documentary evidence that Nicola di Nuto 


g. L. Fumi, of. cit., pp. 288 ff. 


8 THE ART BULLETIN 


took a particular pleasure in carving figures in wood (otherwise, as cathedral architect, he 
would never have occupied himself so much with the carving of the choir stalls), it is 
entirely possible that he also reserved for his own execution such important pieces as the 
crucifixes and the powerful seated figure of Christ Blessing, which, as the most important 
of the choir statues, is now preserved in the cathedral museum. Next to Nicola di Nuto, 
the sculptor and wood carver most frequently mentioned in the records is Jacopo di Lotto, 
who worked under Nicola from 1325, when, to judge from his low salary, he was still quite 
youthful. In 1334 and afterwards, however, he received the same high fee for his statues 
as did Nicola di Nuto. He worked on the choir stalls till 1359 and executed the greater 
number of the half-length figures. 

Equally daring, although quite possibly correct, is Venturi’s interpretation of the records 
regarding Nicola di Nuto’s journey to Perugia. There is, as Venturi points out, a close 
relationship in style between the fagade sculptures in Orvieto and the tomb of Benedict XI 
in S. Domenico in Perugia, although the latter is much more roughly executed; and we 
may concur with Venturi’s attribution of the architectural plan to Maitani and the major 
portion of the execution to Nicola di Nuto. He connects the documented stay of both 
these masters in Perugia with the tomb. Maitani from 1319 on spent much time there, 
but of Nicola di Nuto we learn only that in 1321 (not in 1324, as Venturi says), in the month 
of September, he went for three days to Perugia in Maitani’s service, and on the third day 
returned with the latter to Orvieto. Some months later an often-mentioned sculptor, 
Cione di Pietro Hermanno, also went from Orvieto to Perugia at Maitani’s behest, but we 
have no word concerning his return. To judge solely by the records, therefore, we have as 
much ground for connecting him as Nicola di Nuto with the collaboration on the tomb. 

This note on Nicola di Nuto’s journey is the earliest notice in the Orvieto documents 
concerning the artist, who is here designated as Magister Niculutio Nuto.!° After this time 
mention is made of him more than once in connection with the casting of the bronze angels 
over the central portal of the cathedral, and after the death of Lorenzo Maitani he became 
leading architect of the cathedral in association with his brother Meo and Maitani’s two 
sons. He is mentioned in this capacity in 1332, 1334, and 1335, so that we may assume 
him to have been resident in Orvieto, with only fleeting absences, from the year 1321 
onward. It is possible that he maintained his position as leading architect of the cathedral 
subsequent to 1335, but he is not mentioned again in this capacity until 1347. As Giovanni 
di Agostino is mentioned as capomaestro in 1337, in association with Meo di Nuto and 
Ambtogino di Meo, it is likely that Nicola spent these ten years elsewhere—possibly in 
Siena. We find mention of him for the last time in the Orvieto records in November, 
1347. With the appointment of Andrea Pisano as cathedral architect at the close of this 
year, a different stylistic tendency appeared, so we may assume that the activities of 
Nicola di Nuto then came to an end and that his death probably took place during this 
year. He may have been born about 1290. 


daily, Nuto da Siena, Lupo di Francesco, and a few others 
received five and a half soldi. As we noticed, ten years 


10. It is, however, very probable that the “Nuto da 
Siena”? mentioned together with Tino di Camaino as 


working at Pisa in January, 1315, is identical with our 
artist. According to P, Bacci (Rassegna d’arte, 1921, p. 73) 
this Nuto was one of the masters of the “gradule” of the 
cathedral at Pisa and formerly “famulus” of Giovanni 
Pisano, While Tino received at this date eight soldi 


later at Orvieto Nicola di Nuto received nine soldi daily. 
Also the connection with Giovanni Pisano as well as with 
Tino di Camaino is in no way contradictory to this 
identification, since the character and development of the 
art of Nicola di Nuto point clearly in this direction. 


Fic. 12—Arezz0, S. Domenico: Tomb of Ranieri degli Ubertini, Bishop of Volterra, by 
Agostino and Agnolo di Siena 


Fic. 13—Florence, S. Maria Novella: Tomb of Fra Corrado della Penna, Bishop of 
Fiesole, by Agostino and Agnolo di Siena 


Fic. 14—Florence, S. Maria Novella: Tomb of Bishop Aldobrandino Cavalcanti, by 
Agostino and Agnolo di Siena (?) 


Fic. 15—Siena, Academy: Scenes from the Life of S. Filippo Benizzi, by Agostino and Agnolo di Siena 


Fic. 16—Siena, New Cathedral Facade: Marble Relief of Christ Blessing, by Giovanni di Agostino 


SIENESE AND PISAN TRECENTO SCULPTURE II 


In addition to the two crucifixes and the splendid Christ Blessing, we have an excellent 
illustration of Nicola di Nuto’s art as a wood carver in a standing Madonna (Figs. 9 and 10) 
which some time ago came from private Sienese ownership into the possession of Mr. F. 
Thyssen, Duisburg, Germany. The delicate, floating rhythm of the body and the garments, 
the tender, lyric mood, the explicit type of the Madonna’s head, with its low, prominent 
forehead, the connection of nose and forehead by one straight line, the narrow half-closed 
eyes, short chin, and small, full mouth all plainly point to the same hand that carved the 
marble statue in the cathedral museum (Figs. 5 and 7) and the Madonna Enthroned of 
the cathedral portal (Fig. 6). 

While this Madonna must have been executed during the third or fourth decade of the 
fourteenth century, the wooden crucifix in the cathedral museum of Siena (Fig. 4) is 
probably two decades earlier. The museum label ascribes it to a pupil of Nicola Pisano, 
but G. de Nicola has, with more foundation, published it as a work by a Sienese follower 
of Giovanni Pisano, and L. Dami!! also connects it with this master. The relationship 
to the master of the Orvieto sculptures is, however, as obvious in the composition as in 
the type and in the delicate technique. The profile reminds us of the Madonna in the 
cathedral museum, and where the pose of the figure is concerned the two crucifixions in the 
facade reliefs offer many points of comparison. In each case we are struck by the remark- 
ably naturalistic presentation of the tree cross, with its high-hung inscription tablet. On 
the other hand, the contraposition of the head and the knees of the crucified body betrays 
the influence of Giovanni Pisano. If this is really—as I should like to assume—an early 
work by Nicola di Nuto, it is interesting to note how early he emancipated himself from 
Giovanni Pisano’s influence, for there is little trace of it left in the Orvieto reliefs. 

Still another, but considerably later, work in the style of Nicola di Nuto is to be found 
in Siena and shows the influence that his art exerted there. This stands in the Oratorio 
della Notte in a most inaccessible position. It is a marble statue of the Madonna (Fig. 8), 
of which only the upper portion, profusely hung with votive offerings, is visible in its 
artificially lighted niche. With some difficulty I obtained a photograph of this hitherto 
unpublished statue, the tender lines of which demonstrate most pleasingly the style of our 
master’s admirable art. 


(2) AGOSTINO DI GIOVANNI AND GIOVANNI DI AGOSTINO 


Venturi tentatively attributes to Gano, the sculptor of the Casole monuments, the 
skilfully executed triple marble panel with the legend of S. Filippo Benizzi in the Academy 
of Siena (Fig. 15). As he himself was the first to classify rightly the principal works of the 
famous workshop of Agostino di Giovanni and Agnolo di Ventura, it is curious that he 
should have overlooked the relationship of this panel to the style of these masters,’? to 
whom it may unquestionably be attributed. The preference for a rigidly stylized outline, 
for a triangular arrangement of the garments and of the whole figure, for a loose composi- 
tion, with much empty space, together with the incomparable dexterity of the chiseling, 
which we do not find in any other master of this period, are characteristic signs of the 
workshop that executed the tomb of Cino di Sinibaldi in Pistoja and the Tarlati monument 
in Arezzo. From this relief one can form a very good idea of how the mutilated panels of 


11. Nicola in Rassegna d’arte, 1913; Dami in Dedalo,1923. masters (of. cit., p. 152) erroneous, Compare my essay 
12. I consider Volbach’s characterization of these in Art in America, December, 1924. 


12 THE ART BULLETIN 


the Tarlati monument must have looked. We have here the same Giottesque brevity of 
story, the same simplified forms, creating a monumental effect, even with small figures, the 
deeply carved draperies, the precise drawing and sharp outlines, and the same fine profiling 
of the framework. The saint at prayer on the stairway of the tower in the first relief is 
portrayed in a most convincing manner, the collapse of the unfortunate in the middle 
panel, with the overturned table and all its appurtenances, is daringly delineated, but 
particularly striking is the freedom of representation in the third panel, of the saint, in a 
complicated attitude, swooning beside the altar. We would have to go back to earlier 
mediaeval sculpture to find an equally sure and accurate presentation. 

Another work by these same masters, and executed in the same blue-veined gray marble, 
stands almost unnoticed in S. Domenico in Arezzo (Fig. 12), the town where for years they 
worked. This is the tomb of the Bishop of Volterra, Ranieri degli Ubertini. The high 
arch, supported by two pillars between which originally there may have been a niche with 
a fresco or a statue of the Madonna, suggests these masters in fineness of outline and 
severity of drawing, and it is not difficult to recognize their technique in the precise and 
skilfully stylized form of the recumbent bishop and the Benedictine monks at his head 
and feet. Especially in the draperies we see the well-known triangular forms alternating 
with flowing curves. The careful and well-preserved coloring of certain portions of the 
bishop’s garments, the cushion, and the cloaks of the Benedictines lend a peculiarly 
appealing effect to this admirable work. One cannot but marvel anew at the daring of the 
chisel strokes, especially noticeable in the treatment of the head—a broad treatment of the 
marble which, juxtaposing planes cornerwise, abjures any softening of the surface planes. 
This small tomb ranks with the best examples of trecento sculpture. 

These two famous Sienese masters also practiced their art in Florence about the time 
that Tino di Camaino was working there on the baptistery, the cathedral, and in S. Croce. 
The tomb of the bishop of Fiesole, Fra Corrado della Penna ({1313), in S. Maria Novella, 
is one of their characteristic early works (Fig. 13), as witness the geometrically conceived 
contours of the bishop’s face with its typically sharp aquiline nose. It seems to me, more- 
over, not unlikely that the tomb of Aldobrandino Cavalcanti (Fig. 14) is not, as is generally 
assumed, by Nino Pisano, who executed the Madonna statue in the niche, but rather by 
these older artists. As Cavalcanti died in 1279, there can be no objection to an earlier 
date for the monument than that of Nino Pisano’s work. The stiff, straight outlines of 
the clothing of the bishop and monks differ from the rounded and flowing curves of Nino’s 
Madonna, and are very reminiscent of the sculptures of the two Sienese. The tendency 
to let the figure and especially the nimbus intrench upon the framework is also character- 
istic of them. There are close resemblances in the delineation of the monks’ cowls to some 
details in the relief of the arca of St. Octavian, in Volterra; and the geometrically stylized 
garment of the recumbent bishop, the drawing of the head, and even the painting of the 
figure are in accord with the Ubertini tomb, in Arezzo. However, since the Cavalcanti 
tomb is placed high and in poor light, it is hard to say definitely, especially as Nino was 
much influenced by these two masters. Divergences in style between the two tombs in 
Florence and that in Arezzo may be attributed to the different technique of the reliefs. 
In the former the figures are sunk into the framework, in the latter, raised above it. 

The importance of the activities of Sienese sculptors in Florence in the second and third 
decades of the fourteenth century is proven by the fact that in S. Croce are two more 


OuLSOSP Ip UUDLOID Kg ‘DUUOPD PY ay] Jo anjoIS OuYsOs Pp Ip MuUDaOLy KQ ‘DUUOpD [YL 
aiganyy fo tog 49dd Q :d1yssaungy ajprrag ‘auoy—gt “oly ay} {0 fayay ajq4v py :appipy [oApayywy mary ‘puatg—Li “oly 


ouysos py Up MuuUDRO1y 
<q ‘puuopo yy ay2 fo ayjanqnjs 2]Q40 J 
ounsos y 1p munaory Kq ‘apvusaqn], :29vjvg 8. doysiqyr4y fo apvsDy “D440}]0 A—O% “OTA Lomong jap v4agQ ‘ojawedQ—OI “OL 


SIENESE AND PISAN TRECENTO SCULPTURE 15 


prominent tombs of Sienese origin, those of the Bardi, in the left transept of the church. 
Although a critical examination of the principal figures on the gables of these tombs is 
impossible owing to their height and the lack of photographic reproductions, the statuettes 
of the prophets beneath the sarcophagus, with their curiously stylized heads and geometri- 
cally arranged garments, and the floral ornaments point to the Sienese workshop of 
Agostino and Agnolo. 

As in most of the tombs executed by this workshop, emphasis is here laid on the remark- 
able architectural framework, with its carefully designed outline, to which the figures are 
quite subordinated. In contrast to Giovanni Pisano, these two masters, who were both 
noted architects, showed their greatest strength in the structural plan of their sculptures, 
and in so far as feasible they subordinated human forms to the main outlines of the frame- 
work. Their compositions may be compared with those of Ambrogio Lorenzetti in this 
preoccupation with a strict and regulated structure, while an analogy for Tino di Camaino’s 
tendencies may, in the realm of painting, be found in the work of Simone Martini. 

That Venturi was right in his assumption that Agostino and Agnolo di Siena were active 
in Volterra is proven by a hitherto unnoticed product of their workshop in that town, the 
tabernacle over the door of the archbishop’s palace (Fig. 20). It is the work of the weaker 
Giovanni di Agostino, the son of Agostino di Giovanni, who, frankly in consequence of his 
father’s preéminent achievement, seems to have attained early a considerable fame. The 
relationship of the types, particularly of the angels, with those of the little Madonna 
tabernacle in S. Bernardino, Siena, is very marked. We find too the thistle-leaf ornamenta- 
tion, of which these masters made such frequent use, and the continuous quatrefoil (as 
in the tomb of Bettino dei Bardi in S. Croce), and, finally, the figure of Christ Blessing 
compares well with that in the delightful relief in the fagade of the new cathedral (Fig. 16). 
This relief, with its companion piece, the half-length figure of the Madonna (Fig. 17), 
belongs to the best achievement of this very unequal master. The charming outlines and 
finely drawn wings of the putti on either side of the figure of Christ foreshadow the work 
of the quattrocento Florentine sculptors. There are in existence stucco reproductions of 
the half-length figure of the Madonna (one in the hands of a Florentine art dealer), and a 
full-length marble figure of the Madonna strikingly similar in composition appeared some 
time ago in the hands of a dealer in Rome (Fig. 18). 

Giovanni di Agostino is known to have been one of the architects of the new cathedral 
in Siena. It was during his regime that the justifiable question as to the strength of the 
partly completed structure arose, and his successor was compelled to advise against the 
continuation of the building so magnificently planned but so insecurely carried out. 
When scarcely thirty years old Giovanni was invited to become the architect at Orvieto 
(1337) but his efforts here too seem to have been crowned with small success as he very 
soon disappeared from the scene. It is significant that his father accompanied him to 
Orvieto but soon returned to Siena, and presumably the son could not successfully dispense 
with the paternal advice. His sculptures amply prove his dependence on his father, for 
his capacities diminished with his removal from this influence. There are, I believe, two 
examples of his activities in Orvieto, both in the cathedral museum, a Madonna Enthroned 
(Fig. 19) and an allegorical figure of Strength, which is remarkable as one of the few 
unfinished trecento marble statues perserved. It is not difficult to recognize Giovanni's 
hand in the softly massed draperies flowing in fourfold curves and curiously piled together, 
in the arms, which look as if they had been glued on, and in the slack wrists. 


16 THE ART BULLETIN 


(3) TINO DI CAMAINO 48 


When Emperor Henry VII died at Buonconvento on August 24, 1313, his body, in 
accordance with his last will and testament, was preserved in the castle of Suvereto until a 
fitting tomb could be erected in the cathedral of Pisa. If more than a year elapsed before 
the citizens of Pisa set themselves to carry out his wish, the blame must be laid to the 
unsettled political situation. The Ghibelline city found itself without a ruler and danger- 
ously menaced by the emperor’s enemies. In vain the Pisans offered the lordship of their 
city in turn to the king of Sicily, the duke of Savoy, and the count of Flanders. Finally, 
they determined to raise an army of German and Flemish mercenaries, and invited the 
imperial stadtholder of Genoa, the famous Uguccione della Faggiola, to take command. 
To solidify his position the latter immediately started to make war against Lucca, Pisa’s 
powerful and ambitious rival, with so much energy and success that this town fell into the 
hands of the Pisans in 1314, and Francesco, Uguccione’s son, became ruler of Lucca. The 
amount of the Pisan’s spoil was extraordinary. Not only did the papal treasure, reputed 
to be worth a million golden guldens, which Clement V had deposited a few years previously 
in S. Frediano in Lucca, fall into their hands, but Uguccione managed to extend his power 
to Pistoja, San Miniato al Tedesco and Volterra, and thereby extend the Ghibelline rule 
from Genoa to territories not very far from Florence. 

It was then that the Pisans remembered their pledge to erect a tomb for the emperor, 
and the commission was given to Tino di Camaino on the twelfth of February, 1315. 
The completion of the work within the short span of six months (on July 26) was obviously 
necessitated by the fact that the dedication was not to be delayed later than the second 
anniversary of the emperor’s death, August 24, 1315. The transfer of the remains from 
Suvereto and the dedication of the tomb took place, it is recorded, with the utmost pomp. 

This tomb, created by the great Sienese master, must have been extraordinarily effective 
in its original position in the cathedral choir. The delicate sentiment Tino lent his figures, 
the unity of style of the statues, and the decorative shimmer of many colorful details all 
contributed to this effectiveness. 

The sarcophagus, bearing the wonderfully expressive recumbent form of the emperor 
(Fig. 21) and adorned by a relief of the apostles, rested on four consoles.’° Above it, beneath 
a baldachin, was the group of the seated emperor flanked by his four councillors (Fig. 22). 
The artist must have thoroughly familiarized himself with these Teutonic types during the 
emperor’s five months’ sojourn in Pisa, for they are admirably characterized. As these 
figures were placed at a considerable height, and could not be more clearly distinguished 
under the baldachin than similarly placed figures in Tino’s Neapolitan tombs, they are 
purposely not executed in detail, but with an extraordinary sureness of chiseling and in a 
block-like treatment that is individual to this master. 


13. This section supplements my essay on this artist 
published in Art in America, October, 1923. 

14. R. Grassi, Descrizione storica e artistica di Pisa, I, 
1836. 

15. J. B. Supino, Arte pisana, 1904, pp. 193-198; and 
P. Bacci in his excellent essay Monumenti Danteschi, in 
Rassegna d@’arte, 1921, pp. 73-84. 

16. That the sarcophagus rested on consoles and not, 
as had been assumed, on figure supports, was established 


by Supino from the records concerning the moving of the 
tomb in 1489. E. Bertaux has justly pointed out that in 
this respect the creator of the tomb of Cino di Sinibaldi in 
Pistoja was influenced by Tino’s work. I wish here to 
express my sincere gratitude to Dr. H. Bodmer, Director of 
the Kunsthistorisches Institut in Florence, whose assistance 
made if possible for me to obtain the new photographs from 
Pisa shown herewith, which were made under great 
difficulties by Croci of Bologna. 


OUDUD Ip our] AQ ‘TTA Kauafy sosaguusy fo aans1y quo, uaqunsay fo pwp qT :[pApayjoD ‘vsig —1z “OLy 


Bc ‘ 
trae ™ >i Sore, 


Fic. 22—Pisa, Campo Santo: Emperor Henry VII and His Advisers, from 
Tomb of the Emperor, by Tino di Camaino 


FIG. 24 


Fic. 23 
ls of Emperor Henry VIT and One of His Adv 


ino 


ino di Camat 


ye 


rs, from Tomb of the Emperor, by 7 


1S€ 


i 


Deta 


. 


Pisa, Campo Santo 


oumuDy wp ours Kq ‘sosaduy ayy fo quo mosf ‘TTA Kauayy sosadury fo ssasiapy ay) fo omy fo spwmjaq :ojung odwmy ‘vsig 
Qz “OI iy era) We | 


SIENESE AND PISAN TRECENTO SCULPTURE 21 


Comparison of the heads (Figs. 23-26) in the baldachin group with the head of the 
recumbent figure of the emperor should make it amply clear that all were executed by the 
master himself; no assistant could have produced works of such masterly psychology and 
technical freedom.” Neither is it likely, as Papini assumes, that Tino merely executed the 
seated figure of the emperor and that the surrounding figures are the work of his pupils. 
One need only study the seemingly hasty and yet so masterly and sensitive drawing of the 
mouths to recognize that the same hand is responsible for them all. Still higher, presumably 
on the lower corners of the roof of the baldachin, stood four half life-size female figures—in 
the front, the group of the Annunciation, in the rear, two mourners—while possibly four 
angel statuettes (Figs. 47 and 49) which are still preserved adorned the finials on the peak 
of the baldachin. These four statuettes, at one time placed on the Gherardesca tomb, as is 
shown in an Alinari photograph (Fig. 37), have been linked by R. Papini with Tino’s tomb 
probably rightly in spite of their slight difference in style; and now, with the group of the 
Annunciation (Fig. 27), which in my earlier essay I referred to as lost, they are in a store- 
house behind the Campo Santo. It seems strange that these figures, and the two mourners 
now standing beside the Ricci tomb, should not be placed beside the group of the emperor 
and his councillors instead of in the inaccessible spot (along with other important sculptures 
by Nino Pisano and from the Gherardesca tomb) in which they have been sequestered from 
the sight of art lovers for the past ten years.1® 

Each of three of these little angel figures carries a sphere, pierced above, apparently for 
the insertion of a bronze cross, and symbolizing the Imperial Globe; little metal scepters 
probably fitted into the openings in the opposite hands. That all four angels originally 
had metal wings is proved by the places on their backs where the wings were attached. 
The original coloring was particularly strong in these highly placed figures and it is un- 
usually well preserved here and in the group of the Annunciation, as witness the ecclesiasti- 
cal red of the stole, the blue lining of the cloak, the golden borders of the angel’s garments, 
and the tinted eyes of Mary and the Gabriel of the Annunciation; and it was further 
enhanced by the use of gilded metal. In the document giving Tino the principal payment 
for the execution of the monument, the painter who carried out this decorative coloring 
and the smith responsible for the metal work are specifically mentioned. The four angel 
statuettes are to my mind the only figures which were not executed by Tino’s own hand; 
they show the characteristics of a young collaborator who may possibly be Giovanni 
Balducci, as we shall see later. 

Astonishment has been expressed at the rapidity with which Tino worked, completing 
this tomb in the course of only six months. We are prone to believe that the sculptors of an 
earlier day were slower in their work than their present day brethren, whereas in reality, 
then as to-day, the individual temperament governed the manner of working. The fact 
remains that Tino, after his thirty years of activity, left behind him an achievement of 
considerable extent, although not nearly so large as that of Giovanni Pisano. There are 


17. That Lupo di Francesco took no part in the creation founded was falsely interpreted and had no bearing on the 


of these figures, as has frequently been assumed, has 
already been affirmed on stylistic grounds in my essay. 
At that time R. Papini’s admirable study in Bollettino 
d’arte, 1915, on the sculptures in the Campo Santo had 
escaped me. He, as after him P. Bacci, points out that the 
document on which this assumed collaboration was 


emperor’s tomb. Yet Papini and later Volbach (op. cit.) 
both assume collaboration. 

18. This situation has made the intelligent application 
of R. Papini’s article almost impossible, as his enumeration 
of the individual sculptures cannot be authenticated. 


22 THE ART BULLETIN 


in some of the latter’s reliefs as many figures as we find in a whole tomb by Tino. It must 
also be remembered that compared with the work of contemporary painters Tino’s work 
was little exposed to destruction, in the first place on account of its material, secondly 
because it consisted for the most part of tombs which, while they were frequently moved 
and in part dismantled, were very seldom destroyed. Most of the figures—probably all— 
hereinafter listed were parts of some few tombs that we have not yet been able accurately 
to reconstruct. Tino undoubtedly was a prolific and facile worker. Added to this, he 
lived at a period, the beginning of the trecento, when the imaginative impulse of those 
artists allied to the new movement gushed forth with unprecedented vehemence. 

We would be wrong to assume that, because so many works by him have been preserved, 
he made frequent use of collaboration. At least the figure portions of his work, particularly 
of the Pisan and Florentine periods, seem to be absolutely original and in their formation 
and technique betray so completely personal a character as practically to preclude the 
possibility of a pupil’s collaboration. It should be noted that the master varied his manner 
of execution, and statues or reliefs that had merely a decorative significance, or were not 
to be closely seen, he executed roughly, finishing other parts, closer to the spectator, most 
minutely. This practice explains the difference existing, for example, between the two 
supporting figures in Florentine ownership, the first (Fig. 28) showing the linear pattern 
everywhere carried out to the highest pitch, and the second (Fig. 29) with its companion 
piece representing a saint with donor, only sketchily executed, although the master’s 
characteristically splendid unity of form is found in all three compositions. The differences 
in style are, naturally, due also to the development of the artist, the second figure being a 
work of his early Pisan period while the first shows subtleties which we do not find before 
the Florentine period. 

I am illustrating for the first time the fragment of a font (Fig. 31)!* discovered by Bacci. 
It belongs to Tino’s early Pisan period, and shows even at this early date the artist’s delicate 
spiritual qualities. So far as I know, the Madonna (Fig. 30) on the east side of S. Maria 
della Spina (of which until now no good photograph has been available) has not pre- 
viously been attributed to him. As it falls among the numerous Madonnas by followers 
of Giovanni Pisano, it is hard to name the individual master with absolute certainty; 
I believe, however, that this particular type, with its relatively flat face, in which forehead 
and chin flow in a vertical line, and with its lively and yet lyrically imagined child, lies 
closest to Tino. Undoubtedly this Madonna was executed about 1310, or even earlier, 
before the restoration and enlargement of the church which took place after 1325, when the 
angels on either side of the Madonna and most of the statues on the other facades of the 
little church were added. Still earlier, in close relationship to the Turin Madonna, is the 
charming Madonna statuette in the museum at Lucca (Fig. 33), if it has been rightly 
attributed to our artist. 

Several figures by this master have appeared in private Florentine ownership, and 
doubtless most of them belong to his Florentine period. Among these are the half-length 
angel with folded arms in the Charles Loeser Collection and its companion piece in the 
Palazzo Tempi. These figures have been thought to have come from the decoration of the 
former fagade of the cathedral but are much more likely from the tomb of Gastone della 


19. No. 3 of my list in Art in America, loc. cit. 


OUIDUD Up OULT 

&@ TIA Ksua py sosadury {0 quo 7 
OuIDUDy Ip ouLy XQ ‘adnsig suysoddns OuIDUD) Ip ourT, KQ ‘ainsi suysoddns mos ‘uoyniounuupy ay} fo u154.A 
/GIYSAIUNQG IDAUdg ‘9Uaso) J—O% “OT /GUSAIUNG FDOT “9IUALO}J—SE “OTT jodaq ojungy odwuny ‘vstg—Lt “Oly 


OuUIDUDY Ip ouLT KQ ‘JUOy ousydog OUIDULD) Ip our, KQ ‘DuUuopD IY 
WOA{ UIMSDAY 1091017) oasnyy ‘vstg—I£ “Oy ay) fo anqDIS ajqavypy -vuids vyap viavpy ‘Ss ‘vs~q—of “OL 


OUIDUD tp oury, fo oulmmuUDy ip ours, fo 
4ayaypy morf ‘adNddsy 1[DI14089]] 7 (¢) OULDUUDD Up OULT, dayapy modrf ‘aaysn {0 aénsdey 
I19g4D YN -yjoog "H ¥djoy 4yy «q ‘puuopp yy ayy fo ayangnjs agavyy :yjoog *H y4djpy -4W 
fo uoysayoy “posjag—v& “OL I]Q4D J 2091019 oasnpy ‘poanT—CE “oly fo uo1sayjoy ‘pomag—ze “Oly 


FIG. 35 FIG. 36 
Cava dei Tirreni, Chiostro della Trinita: Marble Reliefs of the Mourning Women under the Cross and 
Madonna with Saints and Donor, by Tino di Camaino 


By 


GATED RTE NERO NEA NIA 


Fic. 37—Pisa, Campo Santo: Tomb of the Gherardesca Family, by Lupo di Francesco 
(the four Statuettes of Angels are from Tomb of Emperor Henry VII) 


SIENESE AND PISAN TRECENTO SCULPTURE 27 


Torre in S. Croce, which originally was much more richly adorned with figures than now. 
They are executed in the same whitish, blue-veined marble as the figure of St. Dominic in 
the Kaiser Friedrich Museum.”® It is likely that the tomb of Antonio d’Orso in the 
cathedral of Florence was, also, originally a more elaborate structure, in the manner of the 
Pedroni tomb in Siena. In any case, we may safely assume that besides the St. Michael 
in the hands of a Florentine dealer, which I have already described,”! the above-mentioned 
figures of angels and the saint with the kneeling donor, also belonging to a Florentine 
dealer, must have formed part of a tomb of this kind. We should remember that Tino is 
mentioned in a document of 1322 as working for the baptistery in Florence.?? 

The most important of Tino’s works at Florence not known to me when I published my 
first studies on the artist is a life-size group which likewise formed part of a great monument 
and may well belong to his Pisan period. It is the figure designated as Caritas, a woman 
in three-quarter length, nursing two children, in the Museo Bardini, which A. Lensi” 
has already tentatively ascribed to Tino. The justice of this attribution can be questioned 
only because of the clumsy additions to the face, which detract somewhat from the original 
Tinoesque characteristics of the figure. The group may be an allegory of the City of Pisa 
inspired by Giovanni Pisano’s group on the pulpit of the cathedral. At any rate, despite 
its cubic compactness, it shows a close formal relationship to Giovanni and it must have 
been executed not later than the beginning of the second or the end of the first decade of 
the trecento. Later, in the tomb of Catherine of Austria in S. Lorenzo at Naples, Tino 
used a similarly designed Caritas as a supporting figure. The above-mentioned figure of a 
youth wrapped in a cloak (Fig. 28), in the hands of a Florentine dealer, is of hardly less 
importance. It was undoubtedly one of the supports of a sarcophagus and is one of Tino’s 
masterpieces, most skilful in structure, delicate in expression, and incomparable in linear 
rhythm. The attractive curly-headed figure is so bent by his burden that all the bodily 
lines, despite the support under the left arm (the right arm is broken away; only the hand 
placed on the hip is preserved), and the outstretched right foot, seem as if broken by weight 
and flow helplessly to the ground. Only the most gifted of artists could thus have combined 
inspiration with such stern forms. 

The diverse development achieved by Tino during his comparatively short career is 
extraordinary.. How much tenderer in feeling and more suave in form his work became in 
the southern atmosphere of Naples, where the French influence was strongly felt! In the 
two hitherto unknown and nobly conceived allegorical female figures in the collection of 
Ralph H. Booth, in Detroit (Figs. 32 and 34), which may possibly have been part of the 
fragmentarily preserved tomb of Filippo di Taranto and Giovanni di Durazzo in S. 
Domenico, Naples, we can already recognize the transition to a suaver manner in the 
dreamy heads, although they are probably not entirely the work of Tino’s own hand.* 
Most likely from the same tomb are the four admirable angel statues, two of which have 


20. No. 13 of my earlier list, illustrated there by fig.9. . Contini, in Rome. Regarding the statues in the Booth 
21. No. 11 of my earlier list. collection my first thought was that they might be the 
22. The document is reprinted by K. Frey in his edi- two missing supporting figures from the tomb of Maria of 
tion of Vasari (1911), p. 349. See also P. Bacci in Rassegna Valois, but one of these I found later in the depot of S. 
@arte, 1921, p. 76. Chiara where also a charming statuette of a knight holding 
23. Dedalo, 1926, p. 772. a falcon upon his hand, by Tino (perhaps from the tomb 
24. A marble statuette of a single figure of a saint from of Filippo di Taranto and Giovanni.di Durazzo) ‘is pre- 


about the same period is in the collection of Count A. served. - 


28 THE ART BULLETIN 


been acquired by the Cleveland Museum and attributed tentatively by W. M. Milliken to 
Giovanni and Pacio da Firenze, whose severe and phlegmatic style is however very different 
from the extraordinary lyrical swing of these exquisite, poetic works from Tino’s own hand. 

The mood and atmosphere of this late style is even more strikingly demonstrated in the 
portions of an altarpiece that exist unrecognized in the Chiostro della Trinita, in Cava 
dei Tirreni, not far from Salerno (Figs. 35 and 36). While subjects such as the Madonna 
Enthroned with Saints are not unknown in Tino’s work, the portrayal of the Mourning 
Women beneath the Cross and of the soldier in two larger reliefs (the crucifix is unfortu- 
nately missing) and the Slaughter of the Innocents in a small relief is new among the 
subjects treated by the artist and shows the master’s dramatic side at no sacrifice of his 
mood of tender inspiration.”» In particular, the splendid unity of the relief of the Sorrowing 
Women, showing him at the apogee of his last style in the moving resignation of the 
expression, the etherial treatment of the forms, and the beauty of the linear rhythm, is 
reminiscent of his contemporary and fellow citizen Simone Martini.** 


(4) LUPO DI FRANCESCO 


Only a few days after the completion of the emperor’s tomb, a new task presented itself 
to the cathedral commission—the erection of a tomb in memory of those who had fallen 
in the important battle of Montecatini, successfully waged against the united forces of the 
Guelph party on August 29, 1315.7” Among the slain honored by the tomb erected in the 
cathedral at Pisa were Carl of Anjou and Francesco, ruler of Lucca and son of Uguccione 
della Faggiola, the Pisan condottiere. It was inevitable that Uguccione’s depredations 
should bring matters to a climax between Pisa and Florence. The latter city felt that her 
preéminent position as the principal Guelph stronghold in Tuscany was threatened, and 
induced her ally, the King of Naples, to send a considerable force commanded by his 
brother Filippo of Taranto to join the hurriedly assembled Guelph army. A second brother 
of King Robert’s, Pietro of Eboli, was already awaiting eventualities in Florence, and he 
and Filippo together assumed command of the Guelph forces. Their opponent, Uguccione, 


25. Unfortunately the photographs that I had made Nos. 35 & 36—Two allegorical statues, collection of 


in Cava were not successful. 

26. Three corrections should be made in my list of 
twenty-five works of Tino di Camaino published in Art in 
America, October, 1923: to no. 5 (Tomb of Henry VII) 
belongs the group of the Annunciation in a storehouse in 
the Campo Santo, Pisa; no. 21 is now in the Charles 
Loeser Collection, Florence; and no. 23 is now in the 
Detroit Institute of Arts. The following supplementary 
list may now be added: 

No. 26.—Madonna statuette, Museo Civico, Lucca. 

No. 27—Madonna statue, S. Maria della Spina, 
Pisa. 

No, 28—Supporting figure, Florentine art dealer. 

No, 29—Caritas, Museo Bardini, Florence. 

Nos. 30 & 31—Half-length figures of angels, Charles 
Loeser Collection, Florence; and Palazzo Tempi, 
Florence. 

Nos. 32 & 33—Supporting figure; saint and donor, 
Florentine art dealer. 

No. 34—Statuette of a saint, collection of Count 
Contini, Rome. : 


Ralph H. Booth, Detroit. 

Nos. 37-40—Four angels holding curtains: two, 
Florentine art dealer: two, Cleveland Museum. 

Nos. 41-46—Parts of an altar representing the 
Mount of Calvary and other subjects: 41:—The 
Mourning Women beneath the Cross; 42—The 
Soldiers beneath the Cross; 43—Madonna Enthroned 
with Saints and Donor (the abbot of the monastery?) ; 
44—The Slaughter of the Innocents, small relief; 
45—Full-length relief of a standing bearded saint; 
46—Half-length relief of St. Benedict, arched at top, 
possibly companion-piece to Madonna and Child in 
Berlin Museum: Chiostro della Trinita, Cava dei 
Tirreni, near Salerno. 

No. 47—Relief of three Virtues, possibly from tomb 
of Filippo di Taranto and Giovanni di Durazzo, 
collection of Maitland F. Griggs, New York (formerly 
Stroganoff Collection, Rome). 

27. See the excellent description in R. Davidsohn’s 
“Geschichte von Florenz,’”’ 1912, III, p. 553. 


Fic. 38—Pisa, Campo Santo: Detail of Recumbent Tomb Figure of Bonifazio 
Gherardesca, the Elder, by Lupo di Francesco 


Fic. 39—Pisa, Campo Santo: Detail of the Gherardesca Tomb, by Lupo di Francesco 


Hie. AL 


Fic40 
Pisa, Campo Santo Depot: Gherardo Gherardesca under the Protection of St. Francis, and the 
Virgin of the Annunciation, from the Gherardesca Tomb, by Lupo di Francesco 


SIENESE AND PISAN TRECENTO SCULPTURE ai 


had on his part already assembled his troops, although in seemingly less imposing numbers, 
under the leadership of his two sons, Francesco and Neri; and the redoubtable Castruccio, 
who had been banished from Lucca, owed his return to Uguccione. 

The battle took place in the valley of Nievole not far from Pistoja. The Florentine army 
occupied the heights of Monsummano, while Uguccione was encamped before the fortress 
of Montecatini, to which he had laid unavailing siege for several weeks. The enemy troops 
had planned to get past him and occupy Buggiano in order to menace his line of retreat 
toward Lucca. No sooner did Uguccione learn of this plan than he abandoned during the 
night his siege of Montecatini and withdrew with his main body of troops in apparent fear 
of the enemy’s superior strength. The following morning the Guelph army started in 
pursuit, carefree, and wearing only part of their armor owing to the summer heat. This 
move was precisely what Uguccione had counted on. His vanguard inaugurated a care- 
fully planned attack on the advance guard of the Guelphs and overcame them. The 
Florentine knights, under the leadership of Pietro of Eboli made energetic resistance, but 
they too broke in confusion when a flank attack by Uguccione’s famous bowmen poured a 
rain of arrows onto the Guelph lance-bearers, who in their turn retreated on top of the 
knights whom they were supposed to protect. A Ghibelline victory was already assured 
before the main body of Uguccione’s troops arrived, and the decisive onslaught was left 
to these fresh troops, who instigated a terrific slaughter. It is said that ten thousand men 
were killed and seven thousand taken prisoner by Uguccione’s troops. Pietro of Eboli, 
and his eighteen-year-old nephew, Carl of Anjou, Filippo’s son were among the slain. The 
latter probably fell in close combat with Uguccione’s son Francesco. The Ghibellines on 
their side lost this same Francesco, ruler of Lucca, and Castruccio, who had greatly con- 
tributed to the victorious outcome, was badly wounded. 

Uguccione ordered the bodies of Carl of Anjou and his own son Francesco, which were 
found side by side on the battlefield, to be buried immediately after the battle in a common 
grave in the Badia di Buggiano, and later their bones, when, as was then customary the 
flesh had been removed from them by boiling, were taken to Pisa, where the tomb was 
erected in the cathedral in their memory and that of the other heroes of this battle. 

Unfortunately, the entire tomb has disappeared, but we know at least by whom it was 
executed. Lupo di Francesco, who succeeded Tino di Camaino as chief architect of the 
cathedral,?® was commissioned in October, 1315, to obtain the marble blocks for this tomb 
from Carrara, and according to another document he was still occupied with this task in 
February of the following year. The first document speaks of the tomb to be executed for 
the “Principo et aliis corporibus qui sunt in ecclesia.” In the second, the more explicit 
information of “apportatis de exercitu Montis Catini” is added to the “corporibus.”’ For 
a long time the first record was erroneously associated with the emperor’s tomb executed 
by Tino, which at this date had long since been completed. R. Papini correctly points out 
that the emperor was designated always as Dominus Imperator, and R. Davidsohn” has 
already in illuminating fashion connected the reference to the “Principo” with Carl of 
Anjou who, despite the pleas made by his father, Filippo, from Florence, was buried with 
Francesco Uguccione in Pisa. A document found by P. Bacci tells that Tino di Camaino 


28. C. L. Tanfani, Notizie d’artisti tratte dai documenti 29. R. Davidsohn, op. cit., p. 584. 
pisant, Pisa, 1873, p. 68. 


32 THE ART BULLETIN 


fought on the side of the Guelphs in the battle at Montecatini and was dismissed on this 
account from his position as chief architect of the cathedral: this explains the employment 
of another artist for the execution of the new tomb in the cathedral. 

Of Lupo di Francesco, who executed this tomb, we know further*® that in January, 
1315, he was occupied with the work of the cathedral construction together with other 
sculptors under the leadership of Tino di Camaino at a salary of five and a half soldi daily 
and that in 1318 he directed the quarrying of the necessary marble in the Pisan hills and 
that at this same time he was paid for the delivery of the (metal?) wings of two angels for 
the high altar of the cathedral and for the painting of these same angels, which were 
undoubtedly his own work. We know too that in 1325, as leading architect of the city, 
he advised with the authorities concerning additions to the church of S. Maria della Spina 
and that in 1336 he was employed at a high stipend together with his son Gherio, in con- 
nection with the church of S. Caterina. It is probable that he was then still cathedral 
architect. The death of Tino di Camaino occurred in Naples about this time and we may 
assume that Lupo di Francesco’s dates are about the same as his, a supposition which, we 
will see, finds further support on stylistic grounds. 

To return to the political history of Pisa, we find that Uguccione, like many another 
famous general, soon came to the end of his tether when, in lieu of making wars, he essayed 
to control the political destinies of the city. So brutal was he in his treatment of any 
statesman who failed to win his favor, that the Pisan noblemen, under the leadership of 
Count Gherardo (or Gaddo) della Gherardesca determined to banish him from the city. 
While Uguccione was on the way to Lucca to dispose finally of Castruccio, whom he had 
already imprisoned on account of his waxing power, the gates of Pisa were closed against 
him, and no sooner did the citizens of Lucca hear of this event than they, too, took steps to 
free themselves from the tyrant. Castruccio was released from prison and proclaimed ruler 
of Lucca amid the plaudits of the people, while Uguccione and his son Neri were driven 
from the city. Nothing remained for the former hero, now deserted by his adherents, but a 
retreat to northern Italy. He found refuge at the court of the Can Grande in Verona, where 
for a long time he vainly nourished projects of revenge. 

The Pisans promptly elected Count Gherardesca ruler of their city, and from 1316 till 
his death in 1320 (1321 according to Pisan reckoning) he governed with great political 
sagacity both in his foreign and his domestic relations. His personality holds a peculiar 
interest for us on account of the tomb in the Campo Santo. 

The Ugolino who, to Dante’s horror, languished away in the Hunger Tower with his 
seven sons and nephews was one of this family. A Gherardesca it was who, as the com- 
panion of Conradin, the last of the Hohenstaufers, was put to death with him by order of 
Carl of Anjou, leaving two sons, Bonifazio and Ranieri della Gherardesca. Ranieri was 
one of the heroes of the battle of Montecatini, and was knighted above the corpse of the 
young Carl of Anjou, cursing the forebear of this lad as his father’s murderer. Bonifazio il 
Vecchio enjoyed particular esteem for he expended his fortune on good works. At one time 
he was taken prisoner by the Genoese, but was released by them shortly before the great 
naval battle of Meloria in 1284 when the Pisan fleet was completely destroyed by the 
Genoese. He died in 1313. The tomb erected in his memory by his son acquaints us with 
the features of this corpulent, keen and friendly-looking nobleman (Fig. 38). 


30. C.L. Tanfani, of. cit.; Supino, Arte pisana, p. 108; 
P. Bacci, Rassegna d’arte, 1921. 


SIENESE AND PISAN TRECENTO SCULPTURE 33 


Gherardo (or Gaddo) della Gherardesca succeeded in establishing a peaceful civic 
government and concluded a most favorable pact with the king of Naples. He married 
his son to the daughter of Castruccio, ruler of Lucca and bestowed the dignity of Podesta 
on his uncle Ranieri, who was later to become his less fortunate successor. One of the 
happiest interludes in Pisan history comes to an end with Gherardo’s early death. 

Bonifazio il Vecchio and Gherardo della Gherardesca are both buried in the great tomb 
that to-day still adorns the Campo Santo, although it is now in somewhat fragmentary 
condition (Fig. 37). Younger members of the family, the boy Gherardo, who died in 1337, 
and Bonifazio Novello, who died in 1341, were later interred in the same tomb; this led 
in recent years to the attribution of a considerably later date to the monument—the middle 
of the century, or even later. Supino was the first justly to reject as most unlikely the 
attribution of the tomb to Tommaso Pisano, Nino’s brother, and to connect its author with 
a relief of the Annunciation in S. Michele in Borgo and the statues in the baldachin over 
the entrance to the Campo Santo. Papini calls attention to the fact that the boy who died 
in 1337 was, according to Morrona’s description, buried in a sarcophagus placed in front 
of the monument at a later date; Papini thinks that the tomb must have been erected 
shortly after Gherardo’s death. It seems more likely that it was erected by Gherardo’s 
order during his lifetime, in fact soon after the death of the elder Bonifazio, that is, between 
1315 and 1320. The character of the inscriptions bears out this supposition. The middle 
tablet, beneath the tomb, bearing the principal inscription, a dedication to Bonifazio, who 
died in 1313, is in the same lettering as the inscription on the sarcophagus itself, while the 
tablet below on the left, telling of Gherardo’s death, makes use of another form of lettering 
and is obviously a later addition. Added to this, we should consider the realism of the 
portrait of the old Bonifazio (Fig. 38). One questions the likelihood of any artist’s pro- 
ducing so realistic a likeness ten years after the subject’s death. The portrait of Gherardo 
(Fig. 40) is even more obviously done from life. Noticeably youthful in appearance, and 
protected by St. Francis, he is shown as donor kneeling to the Madonna. If the tomb were 
really executed after Gherardo’s death, why is he portrayed as alive rather than dead like 
Bonifazio? Papini, to be sure, remarks that according to Morrona both Bonifazio and 
Gherardo were originally portrayed as recumbent figures in the central part of the tomb, 
Gherardo thus appearing twice, once after death and again as the donor beside the 
Madonna. Morrona, however, makes no statement to this effect. He informs us that the 
tomb was dedicated to the two counts, Bonifazio and Gaddo, but mentions only one 
recumbent figure, which he describes as Gaddo’s. Such an error on Morrona’s part is quite 
explicable, especially as he makes no mention of the figure of the donor kneeling beside 
St. Francis. It isto be assumed that Morrona would have mentioned the second recumbent 
figure had it existed.*? 


miglior maniera pisana, Quella del conte Gaddo giacente 


31. Morrona, Pisa illustrata nelle arti del disegno, 
sul?’ arca con t simulacri della Vergine, et dell’ Angelo che 


Livorno, 1812. 


32. Morrona’s description is as follows: “Sovraposto al 
medesimo s’innalza il gran Mausoleo che onordle ossa del 
conte Bonifazio della Gherardesca, cognominato il vecchio, e 
del conte Gherardo suo figliolo che fu il Signor di Pisa. Egli 
e tutto composto di candidi marmi ed é di quel tempo. Non 
manca pertanto la ricchezza delle figure, e degl’intagli net 
membri architettonici, enon che gl’intagli vincono in bontd 
di lavoro la pit parte della statue, perché non son tutte della 


Vannunzia apparisce di piu industre scalpello cioé dall’autore 


" stesso tutta perfezionata. Qualche bontd nelle teste, e nel 


piegar det panni spicca nelle figure di bassorilievo intagliate 
in fronte all’arca medesima. Hanno ancora qualche merito 
per quel tempo le statue della Madonna col Bambino, di 
S.. Nicolo et di S. Francesco situate nel superiore sporti- 
mento della macchina, che tutia insieme si puo riporre fratte 
opere di seconda classe della scuola pisana da not celebrata.” 


34 THE ART BULLETIN 


It is possible from Morrona’s description to reconstruct the tomb and to establish that, 
contrary to common belief, none of the statues have been lost. On either side of the 
recumbent figure of Bonifazio were the figures of Mary and the angel (Figs. 1, 41, and 42), 
that now stand above the count’s body. Of the group that originally stood there, beneath 
a baldachin, only the figure of St. Nicholas remains (Fig. 43). Originally he must have 
stood on the left instead of on the right, as is indicated by the direction in which he points 
toward the recumbent Bonifazio, whose patron saint he undoubtedly was. The Madonna 
from the middle of this group was discovered by Supino above the north side entrance to 
the cathedral (Fig. 44), and the St. Francis, with Gaddo as donor, is now in the storehouse 
behind the Campo Santo. Both St. Nicholas and St. Francis were confiding their protégés 
to the mercy of the Madonna; and the plea for “‘istis comitibus”’ addressed to her on the 
rim of the sarcophagus is conceived in this spirit. The relief on the sarcophagus, of the 
young count who died in 1337, was a later addition, quite naturally carried out in a later 
style than the other portions of the tomb. 

We can hardly doubt that the execution of so important a commission for the ruler of 
the city must have been placed in the hands of the architect in chief, who was at this time 
Lupo di Francesco.** Just as Giovanni Pisano, as chief architect of the cathedral, erected 
the tomb for the deceased Empress Margaret in Genoa, and Tino di Camaino, as his 
successor, was appointed to carry out that of the emperor, it is highly probable that Tino’s 
successor, Lupo, who erected the tomb for the heroes of the battle of Montecatini, was 
given this commission by the first ruler that the city had boasted since the emperor’s 
death. This assumption is strengthened when we realize that the aediculum (Fig. 48) 
on the Campo Santo is the work of the master of the Gherardesca tomb. So decisive a 
structure, as far as the architecture of the Campo Santo was concerned, as this tabernacle 
over the entrance would never have been confided to anyone save the chief architect of the 
cathedral, whose duties included the direction of the work in the Campo Santo. 

That the identity of the master of the aediculum statues remained undetermined for so 
long a period was partly due to the difficulty attending any study of this work on account 
of its position. What was obvious to every one who had braved the fatigues of an attentive 
study through binoculars was first decisively announced by R. Papini in his excellent essay 
on the Campo Santo sculptures: the author of the statues in the aediculum by no means 
belonged to the second half of the fourteenth century as had been generally assumed,™ 
but was, on the contrary, a contemporary of Tino di Camaino’s and a master of consider- 
able importance. The monumental conception, the broad, clear formulation, the strict 
unity of the figures all bear out his relation to the masters of the three first decades of the 
trecento, to the artists of the generation following Giovanni Pisano, such as Tino, Giovanni 
Balducci, or the Sienese Agostino di Giovanni and Agnolo di Ventura. Each figure forms 
a separate pillar-like mass. The lines of their contours are straight and they are stiffly 
ranged alongside of each other. The enthroned figure of the majestic and expressive 
Madonna, probably the most splendid enthroned Queen of Heaven in all Pisan trecento 
sculpture, achieves this effectiveness through her stern structural character. 


33. R. Papini has already tentatively advanced the 34. A. Venturi (Storia dell’arte italiana, IV) aptly 
theory that the master of the Gherardesca tomb might characterizes this master’s style with “forme rigide delle 
prove to be Lupo di Francesco, without, however, any more Jigure,’”’ but connects him unjustly, in my opinion, with 


definite reason than the indication of contemporaneity. some of the late trecento reliefs of the Campanile in Flor- 
ence. 


FIG. 43 


FrG. 42 


Deta 


tpo di Francesco 


by In 


omb, 


1s of the Angel of the Annunciation and St. Nicholas, on the Gherardesca T 


1 


. 
. 


Pisa, Campo Santo 


Fic. 44—Paris, Musée des Arts Décoratifs: Marble 
Statuette of the Madonna, by Lupo di Francesco (?) 


Fic. 45—Pisa, S. Michele in Borgo: Relief of the Fic. 46—Pisa, Cathedral: Marble Statue of 
Annunciation, by Lupo di Francesco the Madonna over the Porto del Crocifisso, 
by Lupo di Francesco 


SIENESE AND PISAN TRECENTO SCULPTURE 37 


The heads of Mother and Child are on a level, the height of the Child is exactly one-half 
that of the Mother, and the horizontal line is emphasized by the position of the arms of 
Mother and Child, held almost at right angles to the vertical line of the group. The folds 
of the cloak are arranged in simple geometric forms. The distinctive structure of the other 
figures is equally symmetrical in effect: witness the angel at the right with crossed arms 
and the outside figures, which hold the folds of their garments massed together in such 
fashion that the curves of the draperies radiate to either side of the hand which grasps 
them. 

We find here those same tendencies, current from the second decade of the trecento 
onward, that may be discerned in the work of the other sculptors enumerated above, 
tendencies in which we recognize a necessary reaction against Giovanni Pisano’s exag- 
gerated and pictorial style, so destructive to all cubic mass formation. To be sure, our 
master does not lay so strong an emphasis on this formation as did Tino di Camaino, 
although it is easier to recognize his insistence on a close adjustment of the extremities to 
the body in the Gherardesca tomb than here, where the hands have undergone many 
modern restorations. In the case of the Madonna, however, the folds of the draperies are 
so deeply hollowed as to remind us of Giovanni Pisano. Otherwise our master has little in 
common with the style of his great predecessor. His figures never show the daring and 
impassioned postures of Giovanni’s, and in place of the latter’s wild and dramatic spirit 
we find here the expression of a serene and diffident temperament, none the less whole- 
heartedly dedicated to the portrayal of devout faith. 

If we have now familiarized ourselves with the characteristics of this rather rigid but 
none the less grandiose sculptor, it is not difficult to recognize in him the master of the 
Gherardesca tomb.* It is only necessary to point out the great similarity in the facial 
types of the tabernacle and tomb. The prominently developed lower portion of the face, 
the jutting chin, the full protruding lips of the straightly cut mouth, the pronounced nose, 
somewhat prominent eyes, and high forehead cannot be mistaken. The long, outstretched 
throats and the precisely placed hands, crossed over the bosom, laid flat against the breast, 
or holding up the drapery at the side are almost identical in the tomb and tabernacle. The 
cubic effect of the free figures and the almost geometrical delineation of the features are 
even more noticeable in the tomb than in the tabernacle. The cubic forms and the flatly 
applied hands are directly reminiscent of Tino di Camaino. 

The Madonna Enthroned (Fig. 44) now above the portal of the cathedral creates, 
particularly in the older photograph reproduced here, a less favorable impression than does 
the Madonna above the entrance to the Campo Santo, but her features, with the straight- 
cut, full-lipped mouth and high forehead, and the pose of her hands and arrangement of 
her draperies are very characteristic of this master. We can hardly believe, although 
there is a hint of Gothic line in the pose, that this statue was executed later than 
so perfect an achievement as the Madonna of the tabernacle, who is seated squarely 
facing the spectator. It is much more likely that the aediculum group, with its more 
gracious attendant figures, is a little the later of the two, and probably was executed 
during the second decade of the trecento. 


35. J. B. Supino and R. Papini were the first to declare Papini. A. Venturi, the Cicerone, and Schubring (Pisa) 
that both these works were by the same hand, a fact hold, on the contrary, to the older attribution of a later 
which I had independently recognized. F. Volbach date and do not bring the two monuments into relationship. 


(Handbuch der Kunstwissenschaft, 1925) agrees with 


38 THE ART BULLETIN 


There is in Pisa still a third work** by the master of the Gherardesca tomb, an Annuncia- 
tion in relief in S. Michele in Borgo (Fig. 45). Years ago Supino” associated this relief with 
the master of the Gherardesca tomb. Papini has opposed this attribution and Volbach 
concurs with him, dating it in the second half of the trecento; while the Cicerone tenta- 
tively attributes it to Fra Guglielmo together with the fragments of a pulpit in S. Michele 
which, however, is undoubtedly by another hand. 

That the relief is the work of our master can be established by a comparison of the type 
of the Madonna with the reliefs on the sarcophagus of the Gherardesca tomb. The same 
formation of the mouth, the same large and empty eyes, the flat hands with their sketchily 
modeled fingers with large nails could never have been reproduced with such close similarity 
by any other master. The much greater movement shown in the garments is, to be sure, 
a divergence, indicating a different stage of the artist’s development. This has led the 
more recent investigators to attribute a later date to this relief. To me, however, the 
earlier date of the Cicerone seems nearer the mark. We find similarly ample draperies 
although in more angular form, in the work of Nicola Pisano, and the classical, large- 
featured type of the Madonna and the heroic cast of the angel’s head are also remniscent 
of this style. It seems not unlikely, therefore, that in its beginnings the style of our master 
stood in as close relationship to Nicola as to Giovanni, although his originality of spirit 
soon led him far from both. 

As we claim to recognize Lupo di Francesco in the master discussed above, we must 
abandon all idea of identifying him in any of the S. Maria della Spina sculptures or with the 
master of the apostles from the workshop of Giovanni Pisano in the Berlin Museum. For, 
as I see it now after a careful examination, not one of the numerous statues on the outside 
of S. Maria della Spina in the least suggests the master of the Gherardesca tomb. 

A little-known marble statuette of the Madonna and Child in the Musée des Arts 
Décoratifs in Paris (Fig. 46) is closely related to him in style. It is true that any comparison 
between this small, carefully executed figure and the life-size decorative figures of the 
Campo Santo is somewhat difficult. The master’s tendency toward geometric construc- 
tion in the outlines of his figures is noticeable, however, as is also his emphasis of the 
horizontal and vertical lines—for instance, the straight shoulder lines of the Madonna and 
Child, and the angular turn of the Child’s arm. There is, further, much similarity of 
feature—the somewhat protruding eyes, full upper lip, straight mouth, and, finally, the 
hands with their long, flat fingers are particularly noteworthy. The relationship to Nicola 
Pisano is noticeable in the portrayal of the draperies and in the heroic spirit that pervades 
the work. 

(5) GIOVANNI BALDUCCI 

That where sculpture was concerned Florence should have occupied a position of 
secondary importance during the first three decades of the trecento was by no means a 
coincidence. Nor was it accidental that Pisa and Siena should have boasted more im- 
portant masters who produced almost all the sculptures required to fill Florentine needs, 
so that the latter’s rise in this domain should have commenced only in 1330, with the 


36. Papini ascribes to this master also the more than 37. Arle pisana, 1904, p. 245. 
life-size figure of St. Zeno in the Campo Santo, but I am 
not yet ready to accept this attribution. 


LINpID wWuveOLy) LOnpIDg wMupeo1y 
Kg ‘JIA Kauayy sosaduy fo quo, Kg ‘TIA S4uay sosaduyg fo quo] 
mod{ ‘Jasup uv fo ayjanqvjs ajqav Py o9sauvay up odnT Xq ‘[vj40q ay} 4an0 mod{ ‘Jasup un fo ayjanqn]S ajiqg4v Jy 
yodaq ojung oduvy ‘psiq—6t “oly apaDUudsagn [. :0JUDS oduDvy ‘DStg—SV “O1A jodaq ojupg odupy ‘vstg—Lt¥ “ory 


LIONpIDg Wupe014) 
Kg ‘UOUDIIUNUUP ay] 
fo vuuopn py ay7 fo anjnis 


91Q4AD JY -9AaNnOT 


¢ 


S14D 


d—7S “oly 


LonpIp_ WMupao1y 
XQ ‘0199INASD OldaUdDNY fo quo 
LOISIIUDAY “S ‘DUDZADG—IS “OLT 


“Neseeacrtiane 


» Lee i 


Lonppg wWuneor+y 
Kg ‘O12INAJSD O1AdUADN) 
fo quo], mosf ‘puuopp yy :40ysa1/0) 


UosUYyo f°“) UYOL 


‘ 


DIY 4 [apvpry 


d—os 


rd) 


I 


A 


SIENESE AND PISAN TRECENTO SCULPTURE 41 


activities of Andrea Pisano. During this period the Ghibelline, or imperial, party was in 
the ascendancy in Tuscany, and its principal cities were Pisa, Lucca, Pistoja, and, for a 
while, Siena. The presence in Italy of the emperor, Henry VII, and later, toward the 
end of this period, although but fleetingly, of King Ludwig of Bavaria, added to this 
prestige. This ascendancy over the Guelph party, whose principal Tuscan possession, the 
city of Florence, was long menaced by the advancing forces of the Ghibellines, is summarized 
by the three decisive battles of the era: the battle of Montaperti, in 1260; the battle of 
Montecatini, in 1315, and, finally, the battle of Altopascio, in 1325, when the united forces 
of the Ghibellines defeated the combined Guelph armies of Florence and Naples. Uguc- 
cione della Faggiola was, as we have already seen, the hero of the battle of Montecatini, 
and Castruccio Castracani,** who took prominent part in this earlier battle, was destined 
to be the hero of Altopascio. As ruler of Lucca he became, with the possible exception of 
Uguccione, the most significant Ghibelline figure in Tuscany during the first three decades 
of the trecento, and his political sagacity was far greater than Uguccione’s. His romantic 
life story begins with the banishment of his family, the Antelminelli, from Lucca, and his 
association as a youth with a trading house which his uncle Coluccio established in Pisa. 
His love of adventure, however, soon took him afield, and he fought among the Italian 
mercenaries in Flanders for Philip the Fair, returning to Italy with the imperial legate for 
Tuscany, Napoleone degli Orsini, and entering the military service of the republic of 
Venice. Later he went to Lombardy among the followers of the Imperial Stadtholder 
Werner von Homburg. From Milan he went, in the year 1313, with the mercenaries whom 
he now commanded, to join the emperor in Pisa, and, in the short space of three years, 
became ruler of Lucca and commander of the Ghibelline forces in Tuscany. 

For the next twelve years, until his early death in 1328 at the age of forty-seven, he was 
arbiter of Tuscany’s destiny. Through a series of varying, but in the main successful, 
battles he managed to empower himself of Ghibelline Tuscany from Sarzana to Pisa, and 
from Pisa to Pistoja, and, as a reward for his prowess, King Ludwig on his journey through 
Italy in November, 1327, bestowed on him the hereditary dukedoms of Lucca, Volterra, 
Pistoja, and Luni. His last and greatest goal, the conquest of Florence, was, however, 
not to be accomplished as a result of the weakness of the German king, who preferred to 
return direct to Pisa from Rome. This so embittered Castruccio that he was contemplating 
the betrayal of Ludwig of Bavaria and an alliance with his arch enemies the Florentines 
when death overtook him. 

Castruccio’s happy family life with his wife Pina, a Pisan noblewoman, and his children 
is a very sympathetic side of his history. Only one of his four sons failed to survive him, 
the youngest, Guarnerio, named after the imperial stadtholder, Werner von Homburg. 
It is due to grief over the death of this son that the name Castruccio finds an echo in art 
history—through Guarnerio’s tomb in S. Francesco in Sarzana (Fig. 51). This tomb is 
signed with the name of Giovanni Balducci of Pisa, and frequent literary mention has been 
made of it. 

We can think of a number of explanations of Castruccio’s choice of this Pisan sculptor 
to carry out the tomb. As his youth was spent in Pisa, he may already have been acquainted 


38. For a history of his life see Winkler, Castruccio Castracani, Berlin, 1897, and particularly R. Davidsohn, 
Geschichte von Florenz, 1912 (Chapters 4 & 5). 


42 THE ART BULLETIN 


with Balducci, or he may have learned of him through his wife. If Balducci was allowed 
to help Tino in executing some of the statuettes of the emperor’s tomb, this would have 
been a recommendation for him. It is also possible that Count Gherardesca, to whom 
Castruccio gave his daughter Bertecca in marriage, recommended the artist, who most 
likely worked in earlier years for Lupo di Francesco, the sculptor of the Gherardesca family 
tomb. The marriage between Gherardesca and Castruccio’s daughter took place in 1327, 
at which time it appears the commission for the tomb was given. 

There is only one mention of Balducci in the Pisan records during Castruccio’s Fifetime 
in 1317-18— when he was employed at a comparatively small stipend by the cathedral 
architect, that is to say, by Lupo di Francesco. If he was Tino’s pupil during the time of 
the execution of the emperor’s tomb, we can date back his earliest works to the year 1315. 
We may assume that he was still quite young at this time and that he was born about 1295. 
The almost invariable designation of the tomb at Sarzana as a youthful work does not seem 
justified; Balducci must have been already in his thirties. There is, to be sure, con- 
siderable disagreement concerning the date of the tomb, but I believe it possible to deter- 
mine the actual year. On what ground Milanesi bases his statement that the boy Guarnerio 
died in 1322 I do not know. If it is no better founded than his assertion that the tomb 
was not executed until after Castruccio’s death—an assumption that Venturi and others 
have accepted—we must not lay too much stress on it. At any rate, it seems curious, 
although not impossible, that the monument should not have been erected until six years 
after the boy’s death. 

The assumption that the tomb was not executed until after Castruccio’s death is on 
historical grounds most improbable, for with his death his family’s power came to a most 
abrupt end. His sons endeavored to maintain themselves in Lucca and Pisa, and his 
widow implored the help of the German king on their behalf. In a few months, however, 
they were banished by the city over which Castruccio had ruled, and Pina, the widow of 
this once all-powerful lord, was condemned to death. What member of this family could 
possibly even one year after Castruccio’s death have concerned himself with the erection 
of a memorial to the young Guarnerio? 7 

If, however, the tomb was executed before Castruccio’s death, it must have been built 
between November 17, 1327, and the date of his death, September 3, 1328, since in the 
inscription he is designated as Imperial Stadtholder of Lucca, which title was bestowed 
upon him on November 17, 1327, when the emperor on his way from Pisa to Rome broke 
his journey at Lucca. High up on the pinnacle of the tomb a herald with the imperial 
sword and shield stands as emblem of this dignity. On either side of the pointed arch are 
other shields bearing the arms of Castruccio—on the right-hand side the hound rampant 
of the Antelminelli, on the left the arms of the Wittelbachs with the blue and silver quad- 
rangles. Both these arms are repeated again beneath the sarcophagus. We know that 
King Ludwig bestowed the arms of the Wittelbachs on Castruccio on his departure from 
Lucca. The strong insistence on these titles and dignities would seem to indicate a strong 
natural pride in newly-acquired honors, which is echoed in Castruccio’s report to the town 
of Pisa concerning the dignities bestowed on him in Rome at the coronation of the emperor 
in 1328. The period of almost a year would have amply sufficed an artist like Giovanni 
Balducci for the construction of so simple a tomb, for we can measure his nde by his 
many richly-figured monuments in northern Italy. 


SIENESE AND PISAN TRECENTO SCULPTURE 43 


The tomb in Sarzana is unfortunately no longer in its original form, which is shown in the 
photograph by Alinari reproduced here (Fig. 51). When I saw it in the summer of 1923 
the statue of the Madonna had been replaced by an appallingly modern copy. I succeeded 
in locating the original statue in an American collection, that of the late John G. Johnson, 
in Philadelphia (Fig. 50), to which it was added during the world war in 1915 or 1916. 
It was one of the last acquisitions of this collector, who died in 1917 and who undoubtedly 
had never associated it with the Madonna stolen from the famous tomb. This Madonna,*® 
shows how strong an influence Giovanni Pisano’s art exercised on Balducci. The influence 
is more obvious here than in the other figures, which are rather akin to the master of the 
Gherardesca tomb, as F. Volbach has pointed out, and partly to Tino di Camaino. 

The character of the Madonna statue convinces us, as do the other figures on the tomb, 
that dramatic emotion in the manner of Giovanni Pisano, for which Balducci strove here, 
was not his forte any more than was the stern, compact style of the master of the Gherar- 
desca tomb. Giovanni Balducci had little temperament. He wins our interest through 
the naivety of his figures, and his charming execution of detail, such as the patterns 
ornamenting the garments, the decorations on the nimbuses, and the flower motifs in 
the corners of the sarcophagus reliefs. The most noticeable facial characteristics of his 
Madonna are her small features, particularly the very tiny mouth with full, protruding 
lips. Similar small features concentrated in the center of a rather large skull are found in 
the four angel statuettes (Figs. 37, 47, and 49) from Tino’s tomb of the emperor, which 
are too weak in execution for Tino himself. Also the somewhat morose expression and the 
phlegmatic movements of these angels seem to point to an artist with the temperament of 
Balducci, whose talent in these works would be indeed still very undeveloped. We find 
these traits repeated in a much finer and undoubtedly later work, a marble statue of the 
Madonna (Fig. 52) in a grou) of the Annunciation in the Louvre (catalogued as the work 
of a fourteenth century Pisan artist), which shows so great a similarity to the Madonna 
of the Sarzana tomb in the arrangement of the garments, the structure of the hands, and 
the proportions as to justify its attribution to Balducci. This assumption is strengthened 
by the attribution to our master already tentatively made by Dr. O. Wulf of the group of 
the Annunciation in S. Croce, Florence (Figs. 53 and 54).4° These two figures were obviously 
executed soon after the pulpit in S. Casciano near Florence (Fig. 55) where we find a very 
similar conception of the same subject in relief (compare, for example, the similarity in the 
rendering of the angel’s right arm). In the inscription here the artist describes himself for 
the first time as magister. The greater detail of the execution, the more delicate finish of 
the surface of the relief, the use of colored marble, and the introduction of small black 
stones for eyeballs all indicate a close relationship with this master’s works in Milan, 
which probably date from a period not too far distant from his Florentine activities. It 
seems, therefore, that the artist went from Sarzana to S. Casciano,"* which had long been 
an imperial possession (Emperor Henry pitched his camp there in 1312), and from there 
to Florence, which city had, in the meantime, concluded peace with the Ghibelline party. 


39. I owe the photographs of this statue to the kind- 41. In the chronological arrangement of this master’s 
ness of Mr. Hamilton Bell. works I am in accord with A. G. Meyer, Lombardische 
40. Katalog der mittelalterlichen Sculpturen des Kaiser Denkmédler des 14. Jahrhunderts, 1893, whereas Venturi, 
Friedrich-Museums, Berlin. Volbach, and others assume his work in S. Casciano to 


have been prior to that in Sarzana. 


44 THE ART BULLETIN = 


When, therefore, we find Balducel i in the late thirties in the service of ther 
Azzo Visconti, we may assume that the earlier relations between Castr 

Azzo, who fought under him, were instrumental in bringing this about. 
should have transferred his activities from Florence to Milan was, in ¢ 
means unnatural, as Azzo Visconti, in his turn, had also coneude 
hold of the Guelph party in Tuscany. 


42. F. Volbach is obviously in error when he says in his friend Azzo Visconti 
the Handbuch fiir Kunstwissenschaft: ‘Soon thereafter Castruccio died in 132: 
(about 1335) Balducci was recommended by Castruccio to whe Rese = 


Pic. 53 Fic. 54 
Florence, S. Croce: Angel and Virgin of the Annunciation, by Giovanni Balducci 


Fic. 55—=S. Casciano, S. Maria del Prato: Relief of the Annunciation, on a Pulpit, by 
Giovanni Balducci 


GETTY CENTER LIBRARY a 


NB 621 S57 V15 


t. 4 Valentiner, Wilhelm 
Observations on Sienese and Pisan trecen 


UNL NIAMIE 


3 3125 00346 9851 


gs sas SN Re eatg answerer She ee 


re cen ern Renee a 


peso eae ON 


pan YNONIES 


esenere rare 
fer ere ue yee ear eee 
Rereremenrer attr tt 
Raee Gp rhress ha 


ieee 
ees 
Fear np ay eiey ce era anes 
Sapege geen staan 
ee pues gait iam 
Seahy ae uegrestane Sie 808 
Lipa ymen nt ae 


aye yee = 
dappeig na ies oscar BB 


oaeaperese ete 
heh Pe rare OTT ee 
Noe Tsemeigetsro 88 


Seer s 


ret: 


pets eta sh eo 


vavEN eS: 
beer SOEUR 


rate 


ena ani 
peta ame FF5 


Seceegmee tenn 


eins 
(= rang sana s babe 
esa a paigeren untae NSE 

sae ese 
Segre ah mT NT 


Breri rr sak ica! 

ae a ag Lek a 
area G2 

Fag ue ae Te 

i : nies © ent 

sure tet * 


panier erst 2 


eee rr we 


ager taal Me eee se 9F 


Sette 
veeneiial 


qariey eaeen eee 
rs is mee Ny Hee rks naive 
May GYR FUVARE MANE ESTE SHH TERTAI CS 
miele eesen wd OY 
upruviee 
pereieis 
SoG 2oP Fenda 2Le Seer 


a WN ae pwd gy de one PREF 
cagueptes 409% at sy 
Faas Vea tat 

cones 
Ress Gta GAOw AT rea OST RREI 
Spat ese AIF ea 


arnt ona 
rer 


Taran rg ta FEO 


ranean Ate cp alee 


ras 
Wow aw suey ew ae 


Pea LEAN OE RESO NS 
Wbsres 


Peretti PCy a inate 
Ie wan eern alenvn tanned renee 


end miae maewees oS" 


saber 
error year 
biota 


tyeaeu ere 
Sees 


weave 


pkes 
Te ic Eas PERM ON Saty 
2 peritiv eRe CTS a 
Se ave cneamronaacers MSO Ee oe Fava SO PLSUT el PORESEE! 
evga ce: beet oie 
avenue pueare Bier pres FH 
Sctpramapnayne 
peices ae arcana 


rE aan ead 
faerie Leas ool 
Dacca naar WRU 
Sosa nia tar WA TUE RENTS 
Syrureeenyycasnyaus ES NC) 

Rag ruse eee OH 


ev Tarwasin eae ise 
sada ONES rt 
WF gies erste 


pre ass ected Oe ra 
faa apse aT aT 
ash pr aN eae Im 7a 
aug taena aren 


i eave 
siewbiaty ee lieceaa al sera 
Bal swereraie aye 
ani aaleks 


Tenmectew cesar) 
RUS Vera MA Ee 
Miers PHT a AN 


oe 


{cae nunyote Kraes ro 
gia onus DEIR pt SAS 
pegs 


were ee 
Ty SR oe ROR MST. 


Se ea 
peerer rt tae 


en ee hr eas 


fon gins reels 
retort ade 
penerrpirerticns 1 
eqiauyze su! 

eneare bP 


NEC ENY 


Sone 
Tawra we! 


He noe Teeny 
Pr etek 
ware 


Limruee bee ry 
wn 2 5 PREP ETS 


Bag od sega 
ert 


